Dear Brian,
I’ve been a follower of your writings since “A New Kind of Christian” and though I haven’t quite read everything, your books have been extremely powerful in shaping how I approach theology, Scripture, disagreements, and a vision of the Kingdom. In particular, Everything Must Change has challenged me in profound ways to begin asking the questions, and living the answers, of how Jesus speaks to the problems of the world, both on the global scene and in my local neighborhood. Thank you for your seemingly tireless questions, and simultaneously the attitude of humility and grace that permeates your writing.
It was with great excitement that I picked up your latest book. It did not disappoint. Your writing clarifies and sharpens many of the ideas that seem to be flowing around emerging church circles. Since I was reading it for a course in addition to my personal interest, I wasn’t able to read and digest quite as slowly as I would have liked, but I look forward to delving into the questions again in the near future, without assignments and other required readings applying pressure to me!
I found chapter 8, From Legal Constitution to Community Library especially fascinating. Here’s why: I work in a music instrument repair shop, with a number of men who have no interest in Jesus or the church, for various reasons. Predominantly, I think the reasons are that they feel they already know the ‘gist’ of what the Bible says, and if they don’t, their experience with Christians, who have condemned them directly and indirectly, both through the media and in their personal relationships, has ‘clarified’ everything else for them. As you say in the chapter, the Bible, when read as a constitution, can be (ab)used to justify a lot of different things, and I think these guys implicitly recognize that, and therefore wouldn’t begin to consider the Bible as an authority in ANY way, let alone in the constitutional way it is often held by Christians. But if I begin to ask questions and suggest to them that the Bible be viewed as an inspired community library, the doors are blown wide open to all kinds of conversations. Not even minding the details (which at this point, these guys are probably not interested in) this shift in understanding brings out the relational aspect of God, that He didn’t simply dictate rules and stories to be followed to a ‘T’, but rather desires and is present in the midst of conversation, disagreement, and tension (like you would find if you read all the books in any library). I’m just beginning this journey with them, and it’s too early to tell where it will go, but whatever happens, it will be great!
I would like to ask you a question regarding the six-line, Greco-Roman narrative that you examine in the beginning of the book. While I understand how this narrative has been abused within the Christian tradition in the ways you articulate, I wonder if that narrative is exclusive to the Greco-Roman (and it’s descendants, the West) view or if that is a more universal approach to life. In a sense, isn’t this how problems are approached and resolved the world over? What if, instead of applying the Greco-Roman understandings to this six-line narrative, terms were used that COULD include that understanding but don’t automatically? What if we changed the terms to, from left to right, “Things as they should be,” “Whatever precipitates the problem,” “the current situation where the problem persists,” “proposed solution,” and then either “a worsening or persisting of the problematic situation” or a return to “things as they should be.” Does this still represent an exclusively G-R or Western approach to not only theology but everything, or has it been sufficiently broadened? While I admit my struggles to get outside of my Western, Enlightenment-influenced mindset, when I’ve talked to others from outside of my own context, they tend to evaluate problems and propose solutions in a similar manner. I recognize that this kind of thing is inherently reductionist, but as a basic framework it still seems valid. My concern with all of this is in regards to practical approaches to integrating and engaging A New Kind of Christianity with existing churches, structures, and mindsets. While I’m ok with the concept of tossing out the G-R narrative line completely, I’m not confident that it is fully necessary. I’m having trouble envisioning an approach to problems and situations that doesn’t look at least broadly similar to that six-line narrative. Any thoughts or suggestions you have regarding this would be greatly appreciated.
Again, thank you for your tireless questioning. It is a continual inspiration and encouragement, and I eagerly await your next book.
Sincerely,
Joe
Saratoga Springs, NY
Joe…I feel the tension of how to engage without doing so from this specific framewok.
We can’t water down the truth of the gospel. It is the power of God unto salvation.
Hi Joe,
Thanks for your post. After reading it, I was better able to define an uneasy feeling I had. The G-R/Western perspective of the perfect spiritual verses the fallen material realm really seems to contrast with the Jewish worldview of goodness here on earth. However, a question just came to mind, “If God divinely inspsired and breathed his story into creation and captured some of it through the Scriptures, then wasn’t it part of His plan for the New Testament to be written in Greek? Wasn’t it the part of God’s heart with the new covenant coming alive to extend His adoption of all peoples and nations into His heart? I do believe this was a critical element of God’s redemptive plan for our NT: to be written in Greek and extend the power of the Gospel to all nations. Part of adopting this language to write the NT meant that the paradigms of the Greek language and culture were also adopted, and I wonder how much of this was part of God’s plan. I don’t have any answer, but it does encourage me to ponder this idea.
Good thoughts Matthew. I’ve been chewing on this a bit. I think, depending on theological presuppositions, there are a few different possibilities. I don’t think it is outside of God’s intention to have the New Testament written in Greek and to have one of its primary authors writing to a primarily Greco-Roman audience, who understandably framed the faith in a way that the Greco-Roman mind could comprehend and receive. I think (and I think this is what Brian is getting at as well) that it just shouldn’t have stopped there. At various points, the Greco-Roman version of the faith became THE version of the faith, enforced with violence when necessary. I think Brian is primarily getting at the captivity of the Gospel to the Greco-Roman mindset, which is becoming less and less prevalent (or at least, we in the west who have that mindset recognize that there are others). So for instance, the creeds are an awesome, beautiful, articulate expression of the faith that still have much to speak to us today. And I’m confident the Holy Spirit knew that as they were being written and established. Simultaneously, the creeds were a cause of division in their time…that seems like it probably wasn’t part of God’s plan, you know? Additionally, there weren’t any Native Americans, or Chinese Women, or South Africans, or Aboriginal Australians at the councils when the creeds were formed. Had they been, they would have had something significant to contribute! All that leads to this question: Can we affirm the positive aspects of historic Christianity while at the same time moving past them to a bigger, better vision of the Kingdom? Isn’t that what great innovators do? Do we celebrate the innovations and developments of the Reformation by enshrining the doctrines of Luther and Calvin in stone, or do we honor them best by doing what they did, which is innovate?
Would love to hear your thoughts on this!